Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| From: | "minf...@arcor.de" <minforth@arcor.de> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Nov 2022 05:39:00 -0800 (PST) |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 22-09-026 22-10-025 <29190_1668508275_63736A72_29190_327_1_22-11-007@comp.compilers> 22-11-009 22-11-013 22-11-015 22-11-017 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="55741"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | history, design |
| Posted-Date: | 16 Nov 2022 10:59:15 EST |
| In-Reply-To: | 22-11-017 |
minf...@arcor.de schrieb am Mittwoch, 16. November 2022 um 14:16:47 UTC+1:
> So the capability in a (meta)language for compile-time execution comes into play.
> Forth is only one example. TCL would be my next candidate. I don't know Seed7
> but its author claims to be able to e.g. redefine and create new operators which
> means new semantics.
> [There was a vogue in the 1970s for extensible languages like EL1 at Harvard
> and IMP72 at Yale. You could add new grammar rules on the fly. What that
> meant was that no two programs were written in the same language and they were
> unreadable and often undebuggable. OOP, which lets you add new types and
> semantics without changing the syntax, turned out to be a lot more useful.
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_programming -John]
A more important aspect of 'usefulness' is the available ecosystem. Experimental
and toy compilers can be useful for individuals, perhaps (very) small teams. This
stops when you have to run a business responsibly, including documentation,
production, maintenance and what you have.
OTOH a good DSL built within and managed by the existing ecosystem can give you
a competitive edge.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.